No one is happy that Iran is producing enriched uranium, but what are the options to deal with that fact? War? That would be insane in the current world political and economic situation. Only a Cheney would consider the use of military force the one and only solution to the conundrum of Iran’s nuclear ambitions (the scope of which no doubt varies from one political figure to the next, just as in any country).
Maybe it’s time to cut a deal with Iran, the deal that’s been on the table for weeks now, rather than continuing to rattle the useless saber of economic sanctions:
World powers should seriously consider a newly-drafted fuel swap plan for Iran to part with some of its nuclear material, even if it is not perfect, a group of high-profile experts said.
The nine experts, including former weapons inspector David Kay, former U.S. Under Secretary of State Tom Pickering and arms control experts Jeffrey Lewis and Daryl Kimball, said the offer should be seen as a possible diplomatic opportunity.
Turkey and Brazil last month resurrected parts of a U.N.-backed offer for Tehran to part with 1,200 kg of its low-enriched uranium in return for special fuel rods for a medical research reactor.
As with all diplomatic solutions it involves a compromise, but we have to start somewhere, and the sooner the better say these experts in the field of nuclear non-proliferation:
The group of foreign policy and nuclear non-proliferation experts said in a statement on Tuesday however that the new offer should not be dismissed.
“We urge the so-called Vienna Group (Russia, France, the United States, and the IAEA) to seriously pursue this proposal as an opening for further diplomatic engagement with Iran on outstanding issues of concern,” they said.
The statement was distributed by the Washington-based National Iranian American Council, a think tank supported by Iranian Americans and U.S. foundations. The non-proliferation experts are independent figures who work for other think tanks and include respected analysts in the field.
Sometimes the refusal to take the first step is the catalyst for disaster. It’s time to walk away from confrontation with Iran and begin a dialogue. Is the current proposal everything the Western powers would want? Of course not. But ask yourself this? Which countries represents the greatest threat to peace and security in Southwest Asia. Iran, which doesn’t have nuclear weapons yet, doesn’t make the list.
No, the two greatest threats to peace in the region are the two powers who already possess large numbers of nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them: Pakistan and Israel. Pakistan because it is a war torn, fractured and nearly failed state. Israel because it is governed by the most radical extreme right wing government in decades which views military force as the primary means of conducting its international affairs.
Iran’s President may make a pest of himself now and then. He may very well be an illegitimate ruler in light of the election controversy last year. However, America has conducted diplomatic relations with characters at least as bad in the past who we knew in no uncertain terms had actual ongoing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs (Saddam Hussein in the Reagan years and Mao in the Nixon years to name but two).
I think we can come to terms with Iran, which is far less of a threat and far less of a military aggressor than Saddam ever was. We don’t have to like President Ahmadinejad to reach an accommodation with him. I hate to drag out this quote from Winston Churchill all the time but it is appropriate to our current situation:
“To jaw-jaw- is always better than to war-war”
Time to get serious about our jaw -jawing President Obama, don’t you think?
I think we should listen to Richard Silverstein:
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2010/06/02/erdogan-tells-turkish-parliament-next-gaza-a
id-convoy-may-have-military-escort/
Another thing about Iran is that they make the most sense to be our top ally in the region, along with Turkey. Screw Saudi, Egypt and Israel. Saudis fund terrorists and are are still in the year 1100, Egypt is ruled by a dictatorship with gross human rights violations, and Israel, well, yeah.
We need new friends, and Iran should be one of them.
I agree. The US has no real grievances with Iran. But the policy establishment continues to treat Iran as an enemy, partially because it can’t admit that it screwed up by supporting the Shah, but mostly for domestic political reasons (read: campaign contributions).
Sullivan has long said that Iran is a “natural” US ally in the region and geographically it seems so–historically suspicious of Russia, not popular with the Arab states on its left or the troubled -stans on its right.
Of course, I assume that any deal with just result in the Iranians simply lying and deceiving so that even when stuff is sent out they’ll enrich in secret. But I’m not terrified of Iran getting nukes, they know suspicion will fall on them if there’s a nuclear terrorist attack on Israel and they don’t want to go up in flames any more than we do.
What the deal does is make Brazil responsible for Iran’s conformance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. And puts Turkey, a NATO signatory, as the auditor of the relationship.
It is the most sensible idea that has come forward.
It seems that the sticking point is Iran agreeing unconditionally to abide by the required IAEA reporting and inspection regime.
If Iran is certified in compliance, then the pressure on Israel, Pakistan, and India grows. North Korea, the other holdout, is a special case.
Most holders of nuclear weapons understand that actually using them is strategically suicidal. Nations hold them as deterrents. And so far, Iran seems to be pursuing a policy similar to Japan’s — develop the capability to manufacture and deploy nuclear weapons quickly but do not actually create a stockpile. As long as Israel holds nuclear weapons, Iran’s policy makes strategic sense from their point of view.
The IAEA inspection rejection is kind of everything, though. The regime obviously knows that, and is using it to buy more time. I think the US and its allies missed out on calling Iran’s bluff by offering to supply low-enriched nuclear power technology in return for dismantling of the enrichment capability and full inspections. Then Iran would either remove all doubt that it’s after nuclear weapons, or agree to a productive partnership with the rest of the world.
It’s not the US and its allies, it’s the “Vienna Group” (Russia, France, the US, and the IAEA) that are the other negotiating partner in this.
I think it was a mistake to dismiss the Brazil-Turkey-Iran deal out of hand. A “we are studying the proposal” would have been more effective.
Of course, domestic politics requires Obama to appear tough publicly, regardless of what is actually going on with the diplomacy.
This all makes complete sense, however the Washington Dems, from top to bottom, toe the Israeli line which is totally against Iran.
Iran’s nuclear program has been continually under IAEA surveillance, and the IAEA has continually reported that Iran is in compliance and not diverting enriched uranium to weapons programs.
Israel, on the other hand, is not an NPT signatory but is now coming under fire to join the NPT regime and own up to its nuclear arsenal. The US is fighting it, of course and continuing to side with Israel, the outlaw, against Iran, the nuclear compliant.
VP Biden, March 11, 2010, speaking at Tel Aviv University:
“The United States is determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, period. I know — I know that for Israel — (applause) — I know that for Israel, there is no greater existential strategic threat. Trust me, we get that.”
and the familiar lies:
“You have to acknowledge that today Iran is more isolated with its own people as well as the region and in the world than it has been at any time in the past two decades.” –Biden
Baloney. Actually Iran’s is supported by the whole world except for six countries. The Non-Aligned Movement, 125 nations, has continually supported Iran. All the major Asian countries (except Israel) including Japan, China, India, Malaysia and Iran’s neighbors do, plus Russia, Brazil, Venezuela — the list goes on. Three percent of the world’s nations are against Iran — some isolation.
Iran has been a winner as a result of the US overthrow of the Iraq government, and again recently with the flotilla. But unfortunately that won’t stop the US from kissing up to Israel and going after Iran.
Israel started the nuclear arms race in the Middle East. I just heard a lady in the street on the BBC say that no matter what Israel does it will never be good. By implication, it might as well do whatever it likes. Maybe such as start a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. All of god’s children want a bomb!
P.S. That was a lady on a street somehwere in Israel.
Also, if you really want “regime change” — a shift towards a less theocratic, more secular government in Iran — the absolute best thing to do is open up Iran to economic and cultural connections to the West. Drop the sanctions, let people, media communications and trade move freely across the borders.
And let human nature do the rest.
I think a lot of the anti-Iran rhetoric is also coming from the Saudis — who do NOT want Iran becoming an economic and political powerhouse in the Middle East. Iran has a tremendous potential to do just that, it’s got huge oil reserves (when the Saudi fields are beginning to peak or are past peak), a vibrant, young and population, a proud and ancient culture, and they’re Shi’ites and not Arabs — and all those factors give the Saudis reason to prefer that Iran remain an international pariah.
And it’s good to see Turkey standing up and becoming a leader in this too.
“Iran has a tremendous potential to do just that, it’s got huge oil reserves (when the Saudi fields are beginning to peak or are past peak), a vibrant, young and population, a proud and ancient culture,”
Why do you think the sanctions are there? Precisely to prevent that from happening. If sanctions are lifted, Iran’s potential is unleashed. It would become by far the most powerful country in the middle east bar none. And while Saudi Arabia may not like it, Israel would absolutely hate it.
Which is why sanctions will never be lifted. Even, if Moussavi is president, or Khatami or anyone else. Even if whole new government was there. Any legitimate Iranian government would want Iran to be as strong as possible. No US/Israeli government would accept that.